同步展示程序性思考步驟內容產出之 範文閱讀電子書

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：19

、訪客IP：18.218.38.125

姓名

曾少甫(Shao-Fu Tseng) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

資訊工程學系

論文名稱

同步展示程序性思考步驟內容產出之範文閱讀電子書
(A Text Reading Interface of E-Book for Synchronizing Thinking Process and Thinking Products)

相關論文

★ 學習馬賽克-以教科書內容置入平板之合作式情境學習遊樂場	★ 為使用知識而設計的電子書- 以參考手冊為模式的電子書設計
★ 為使用知識而設計的電子書- 將紙本書籍以及電子書提供社群共建的機制	★ 高互動低資源損耗之課堂學習系統設計與實際教學環境導入接受度探討
★ 依學生偏好及學習狀態建構之學習輔助者與知識協尋系統	★ 網路資訊與學習系統之中文全文探勘工具
★ 支援使用者觀點之線上分析系統	★ 由網站行為歷程以貝式學習建立學習者模式之引導系統
★ 網路合作學習系統與小組互動觀察工具	★ 依作品集評量方式並支援學習狀況分析與監控之網路學習系統
★ 網路學習歷程之知識探索：學習效能評鑑之工具	★ 網路學習系統之手機端學習輔助系統
★ 以網站行為的歷程建立具時間性學習者模式	★ 行動學習資訊系統-學生端網路學習伺服器與個人數位助理端之學習系統
★ 應用貝式學習及決策樹之群組溝通網路監控系統	★ 以網路群組作品及活動依角色分析之群組合作監控系統

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

現行的電子書延續紙本書的循序說明方式，對於學習像寫作這樣需要程序性知識與思考的，較難讓學生同時看到寫作者寫作過程的思考與寫作結果而習得寫作的程序性知識與思考。
本研究提出一個新的為學習程序性知識寫作的電子書展示方法，並且根據此方法製作出系統。我們基於哈佛大學- Project Zero 的Making Thinking Visible 的理念，將程序性知識與思考的每一個步驟設計出一套以thinking module為基礎的引導問題，而將一個程序性知識思考的範例成品，以介面的兩個視窗區塊，一個展示每個思考過程中的問答，另一個視窗同步展示思考過程中每個作品的成長。思考過程的討論學習者可以自己的思考回答與作者的答案做對比反思。
以寫作為例，我們將一個範文，將寫作者的在每一個步驟的思考與結果與過程中的寫作部分成品同步展示，以使學習者可以借由觀看寫作者的思考過程與作品的成長過程，學習到寫作者程序性知識與思考策略。
目前我們進行了研究前期實驗與三次學習成效實驗，包含實驗組32位學生和對照組30位學生，收集問卷、訪談與後測成效結果。研究結果顯示，本研究提出的新的為學習程序性知識寫作的電子書展示方法，獲得正面的意見回饋，並且取得具顯著性的後測成果。實際進入學校作為教師教學或是學生課後練習使用，仍需要未來的規劃與設計，持續的完善與精進。

摘要(英)

Nowadays, e-books teach sequentially follow the way of paper books. To learn writing which is the subject needed to have procedural knowledge and thinking. It is difficult to learn procedural knowledge and thinking by making the author’s writing process and product visible for students simultaneously.
The aim of this study is to present a new e-book display method for learning writing via procedural knowledge and thinking, and develop an e-book learning platform. On the basis of Making Thinking Visible which is a research project from Harvard Project Zero, we designed a series of leading questions based on thinking routines for each steps of procedural knowledge and thinking.
We displayed the products of procedural knowledge and thinking on one window interface which is divided into two blocks. One block displayed leading questions and answers of each thinking steps, the other displayed simultaneously of every products from thinking steps. During the thinking steps, students can do self-reflection by contrast with the difference between their own thinking answer and the reference answer.
Currently, we studied the previous research and three experiments for the effectiveness of learning, including 32 undergraduate or graduate students in the experimental group and 30 students in the control group.
The results show that present a new e-book display method for learning writing via procedural knowledge and thinking, and develop an e-book learning platform in this study received a positive feedback, and has made a significant achievement of the post-test. To apply the result of this research for teachers to teach and students to learn, we have to keep improving and planning in the future.

關鍵字(中)

★ 電子書
★ 使用者介面
★ 思考歷程
★ 閱讀
★ 寫作

關鍵字(英)

★ e-book
★ user inderface
★ thinking process
★ reading
★ writing

論文目次

中文摘要 i
Abstract ii
目錄 iv
圖目錄 vi
表目錄 vii
一、緒論 1
1-1 研究背景 1
1-2 研究動機 2
1-3 研究目標 3
1-4 研究問題 3
1-5 解決方法 4
1-6 論文架構 4
二、相關理論與研究 5
2-1 電子教科書 5
2-2 數位介面設計 6
2-2-1 數位視窗介面 6
2-2-2 認知負荷 7
2-3 思考程序與寫作知識 8
2-3-1 Making Thinking Visible 8
2-3-2 ACT-R認知理論 11
2-3-3 寫作教學與策略 12
2-3-4 寫作歷程 17
三、系統設計與實作 22
3-1 系統設計 22
3-2 系統流程 23
3-2-1 學生端系統活動流程 23
3-2-2 教室端系統活動流程 24
3-3 系統架構 24
3-4 系統描述 26
3-4-1 學生端系統描述 27
3-4-2 教師端系統描述 36
3-4-3 其他共同頁面 37
四、實驗與結果分析 41
4-1 前導實驗與討論 42
4-1-1 前導實驗流程 42
4-1-2 前導實驗結果討論 42
4-2 實驗對象 45
4-3 實驗目的 46
4-4 實驗流程 47
4-5 評估設計 49
4-5-1 問卷 49
4-5-2 後測成效測驗單 49
4-5-3 訪談 51
4-6 實驗結果與分析 52
4-6-1 問卷結果分析 52
4-6-2 後測成效測驗結果分析 59
4-6-3 實驗訪談結果 60
4-7 討論 67
五、結論與未來發展 69
參考文獻 71
附錄一、前導實驗問卷 76
附錄二、實驗說明 77
附錄三、實驗組問卷 78
附錄四、對照組問卷 81
附錄五、後測成效測驗單 83
附錄六、範文思考問答設計 84
附錄七、對照組電子文本 92

參考文獻

Costigan, S., Jason Merkoski: Burning the Page: The eBook Revolution and the Future of Reading. Publishing Research Quarterly, 2014. 30(1): p. 182-184.
[2] 呂芸樺, 網路超文本的閱讀理解歷程之探討. 2006.
[3] Jairam, D. and K.A. Kiewra, An investigation of the SOAR study method. Journal of Advanced Academics, 2009. 20(4): p. 602-629.
[4] Kiewra, K.A., et al., Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1991. 83(2): p. 240.
[5] Piolat, A., T. Olive, and R.T. Kellogg, Cognitive effort during note taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2005. 19(3): p. 291-312.
[6] Barnett, J.E., F.J. Di Vesta, and J.T. Rogozinski, What is learned in note taking? Journal of Educational Psychology, 1981. 73(2): p. 181.
[7] Bohay, M., et al., Note taking, review, memory, and comprehension. The American journal of psychology, 2011. 124(1): p. 63-73.
[8] 吳庭耀, 比較不同閱讀理解策略對國小中年級低閱讀能力學童在不同文體之閱讀流暢度與閱讀理解表現之差異研究. 2009.
[9] Paul, R. and L. Elder, The thinker′s guide to how to read a paragraph: The art of close reading. 2006: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
[10] Ritchhart, R., M. Church, and K. Morrison, Making thinking visible: How to promote engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners. 2011: John Wiley & Sons.
[11] Blumenstyk, G., Publishers promote e-textbooks, but many students and professors are skeptical. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2001. 47(36): p. 18.
[12] 尤珮君, 網路書店, 線上出版, 電子書. 網路社會學通訊期刊網路社會學通訊期刊,(57), 2006.
[13] Wei, F.H. and G.D. Chen, Collaborative mentor support in a learning context using a ubiquitous discussion forum to facilitate knowledge sharing for lifelong learning. British journal of educational technology, 2006. 37(6): p. 917-935.
[14] 陳永哲, [論點─ 理由─ 證據] 模式之議論文閱讀素養學習系統; A Tutoring System with “Claim-Reason-Evidence” Teaching Model to Foster Argumentation Reading Competence. 2013.
[15] 許博盛, 展現寫作思考流程的範文閱讀平台; A Model Essays Reading Platform for Showing the Thinking Procedural of individual Writing Steps. 2014.
[16] Shamir, A., Processes and outcomes of joint activity with e‐books for promoting kindergarteners′ emergent literacy. Educational Media International, 2009. 46(1): p. 81-96.
[17] Wood, C., Beginning readers′ use of ‘talking books’ software can affect their reading strategies. Journal of Research in Reading, 2005. 28(2): p. 170-182.
[18] 國家教育研究院, 臺灣中小學英語課程綱要與英語教育:系統性回顧. 2012.
[19] Goldberg, A., M. Russell, and A. Cook, The effect of computers on student writing: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 2003. 2(1).
[20] Snyder, L., Re-inventing writing with computers. 1994.
[21] Patterson, N., Computers and Writing: The Research Says YES! Voices from the Middle, 2006. 13(4): p. 64-68.
[22] Chesser, W.D., The e-textbook revolution. Library technology reports, 2011. 47(8): p. 28-40.
[23] Stone, D., et al., User interface design and evaluation. 2005: Morgan Kaufmann.
[24] Cato, J., User-centered web design. 2001: Pearson Education.
[25] 李世忠, 趙倩筠, and 葉盈秀, Moodle 教學平台視覺介面之設計. 2011.
[26] Shneiderman, B., Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Vol. 3. 1992: Addison-Wesley Reading, MA.
[27] Ponce, H.R. and R.E. Mayer, Qualitatively different cognitive processing during online reading primed by different study activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 2014. 30: p. 121-130.
[28] Kiewra, K.A., Investigating notetaking and review: A depth of processing alternative. Educational Psychologist, 1985. 20(1): p. 23-32.
[29] Peper, R.J. and R.E. Mayer, Note taking as a generative activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1978. 70(4): p. 514.
[30] 唐大崙、莊智賢, 圖片位置與閱讀走向對閱讀視線的不對稱影響. 中華傳播學會2005年會, 2005.
[31] Baek, Y.K. and B.H. Layne, Color, graphics, and animation in a computer-assisted learning tutorial lesson. Journal of computer-based instruction, 1988.
[32] Hall, V.C., J. Bailey, and C. Tillman, Can student-generated illustrations be worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 1997. 89(4): p. 677.
[33] Large, A., et al., Multimedia and comprehension: The relationship among text, animation, and captions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1995. 46(5): p. 340-347.
[34] Large, A., et al., Effect of animation in enhancing descriptive and procedural texts in a multimedia learning environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1996. 47(6): p. 437-448.
[35] Najjar, L.J. Multimedia information and learning. in Journal of educational multimedia and hypermedia. 1996. Citeseer.
[36] Sweller, J., Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and instruction, 1994. 4(4): p. 295-312.
[37] Sweller, J. and P. Chandler, Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and instruction, 1994. 12(3): p. 185-233.
[38] 陳彙芳 and 范懿文, 認知負荷對多媒體電腦輔助學習成效之影響研究. 資訊管理研究, 國立中央大學, 2000. 2(2): p. 45-60.
[39] Lebiere, C. and J.R. Anderson, A connectionist implementation of the ACT-R production system. 2008.
[40] Anderson, J.R., Cognitive skills and their acquisition. 1981: Psychology Press.
[41] 鄭依琳, 從知識結構的ACT-R模式論國小寫作教學的新方向. 教育資料與研究, 2014. 112: p. 17.
[42] 陳鳳如 and 郭生玉, 整合性過程導向寫作教學法對國小兒童寫作品質及寫作歷程的影響. 師大學報, 1995.
[43] Hayes, J.R. and L.S. Flower, Writing research and the writer. American psychologist, 1986. 41(10): p. 1106.
[44] Hillocks, G., What works in teaching composition: A meta-analysis of experimental treatment studies. American Journal of Education, 1984: p. 133-170.
[45] Hillocks Jr, G., Synthesis of Research on Teaching Writing. Educational Leadership, 1987. 44(8).
[46] Voss, J.F., G.T. Vesonder, and G.J. Spilich, Text generation and recall by high-knowledge and low-knowledge individuals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1980. 19(6): p. 651-667.
[47] Benton, S.L. and K.A. Kiewra, 5. The Assessment of Cognitive Factors in Academic Abilities. 1987.
[48] 王硕, 基于程序性知识在写作教学中的运用教案设计. 课外阅读: 中, 2011(5): p. 111-112.
[49] O′malley, J.M. and L.V. Pierce, Authentic assessment for English language learners: Practical approaches for teachers. 1996: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Boston.
[50] Ferris, D.R., Student Reactions to Teacher Response in Multiple‐Draft Composition Classrooms*. TESOL quarterly, 1995. 29(1): p. 33-53.
[51] 仇小屏, 限制式写作之理论与应用. 2005, 台北: 万卷楼图书有限公司.
[52] Brown, J.S., A. Collins, and P. Duguid, Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational researcher, 1989. 18(1): p. 32-42.
[53] 韦志成, 语丈教学艺术论 [阅. 1998, 南宁: 广西教育出版社.
[54] 劉忠惠, 寫作指導 (下)── 文體實論. 高雄: 復文, 1996.
[55] 易淑貞, 範文引導式作文教學法之研究-以各版國中國文範本為例, in 國文研究所. 2005, 國立彰化師範大學.
[56] Cotton, J.L., et al., Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 1988. 13(1): p. 8-22.
[57] Applebee, A.N., Problems in process approaches: Toward a reconceptualization of process instruction. The teaching of writing, 1986. 85: p. 95-113.
[58] Graham, S. and K.R. Harris, Self-regulated strategy development: Helping students with learning problems develop as writers. The Elementary School Journal, 1993: p. 169-181.
[59] Graham, S. and K.R. Harris, Self-regulation and strategy instruction for students who find writing and learning challenging. The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications, 1996: p. 347-360.
[60] Graham, S. and K.R. Harris, Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing. Handbook of writing research, 2006: p. 187-207.
[61] Reynolds, G.A. and D. Perin, A comparison of text structure and self-regulated writing strategies for composing from sources by middle school students. Reading Psychology, 2009. 30(3): p. 265-300.
[62] Goddard, Y.L. and C. Sendi, Effects of self-monitoring on the narrative and expository writing of four fourth-grade students with learning disabilities. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 2008. 24(4): p. 408-433.
[63] Yang, Y.-F., Students’ reflection on online self-correction and peer review to improve writing. Computers & Education, 2010. 55(3): p. 1202-1210.
[64] Levett-Jones, T.L., Facilitating reflective practice and self-assessment of competence through the use of narratives. Nurse education in practice, 2007. 7(2): p. 112-119.
[65] Danoff, B., K.R. Harris, and S. Graham, Incorporating strategy instruction within the writing process in the regular classroom: Effects on the writing of students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Literacy Research, 1993. 25(3): p. 295-322.
[66] Bean, J.C., Engaging ideas: The professor′s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. 2011: John Wiley & Sons.
[67] Davis, B.G., Tools for teaching. 2009: John Wiley & Sons.
[68] Gottschalk, K. and K. Hjortshoj, The elements of teaching writing: A resource for instructors in all disciplines. 2004: Macmillan.
[69] McKeechie, W.J., McKeachie’s Teaching Tips: Strategies Research and Theory for College and University Teachers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
[70] Gersten, R. and S. Baker, Teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. The elementary school journal, 2001: p. 251-272.
[71] Swanson, R.A., Human resource development and its underlying theory. Human Resource Development International, 2001. 4(3): p. 299-312.
[72] Brown, J.D. and T. Hudson, The alternatives in language assessment. Tesol Quarterly, 1998. 32(4): p. 653-675.
[73] Delett, J.S., S. Barnhardt, and J.A. Kevorkian, A framework for portfolio assessment in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 2001. 34(6): p. 559-568.
[74] Rohman, D.G., Pre-writing the stage of discovery in the writing process. College composition and communication, 1965: p. 106-112.
[75] Pritchard, R.J. and R.L. Honeycutt, The process approach to writing instruction: Examining its effectiveness. Handbook of writing research, 2006: p. 275-290.
[76] Pritchard, R.J. and J.C. Marshall, Evaluation of a tiered model for staff development in writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 1994: p. 259-285.
[77] 張新仁, 台灣地區寫作研究之回顧與展望. 2004.
[78] 蔡榮昌, 作文教學探究. 國立高雄師範大學國文研究所碩士論文 (位出版), 1979.
[79] 蔡清波, 作文小博士. 1985, 高雄: 愛智圖書出版公司.
[80] 陳鑫, 國語科教學研究. 1986.
[81] 陳滿銘, 談詞章的義蘊與運材的關係. 國文天地. Vol. 10. 1994.
[82] Brozick, J.R., The Inter-relationships among Personality, Audience, Purpose, and Cognitive Functioning in Composing. 1976.
[83] Larsen, R.J., E. Diener, and R.S. Cropanzano, Cognitive operations associated with individual differences in affect intensity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 1987. 53(4): p. 767.
[84] Flower, L. and J.R. Hayes, A cognitive process theory of writing. College composition and communication, 1981: p. 365-387.

指導教授

陳國棟(Gwo-Dong Chen)

審核日期

2015-8-4

推文